Talk:G Assist/@comment-6881157-20141010050035/@comment-6881157-20141011110732
"The basic principle of card advantage is: Who ever has more cards at a given time in a game has the greatest chances of winning because they have the most options." I know that, and it's still the same principle my analysis is based on. In this case, it works like this: If I were to be in a situation where I'm going to have to choose either gradelock or G Assist, I should figure out which choice will give me more cards. Gradelock is a +0 for 1 turn (delayed twin drive is -1, not losing a card by riding is a +1) and a -1 for every turn after that. G Assist is also a +0, shown by my first comment. So both options will end up giving me the same card advantage. However, if you take into account that higher grade units have more power and stronger skills, it means that using G Assist to prevent delayed riding lets you gain advantage through higher power (less cards needed to guard when defending, more cards needed to guard when attacking) and stronger skills. So G Assist does actually provide more advantage in the long run, especially if the gradelock would have lasted for more than 1 turn. Now, this ties back to the basic principle in that picking the option which gives more card advantage will result in you having an advantage over your opponent, relative to what the other option would've resulted in. If option 1 results in me having 9 cards and my opponent having 6 (assuming other variables like damage are equal), there's a relative +3 advantage you have. However, if option 2 results in me having 11 cards and my opponent having 6, that's a relative +5 card advantage. The basic principle says that whoever has more cards has the highest chance of winning. That also means the more cards you have compared to your opponent, the higher your chance of winning. Because of that, the relative +5 given by option 2 in my example compared to the relative +3 of option one means that option 2 would result in my chance of winning increasing by an amount equal to the worth of 2 cards. Since I don't know the exact statistics for that, I'll just throw in a random number for this example and say that option 2 would result in your chance of winning being 10% higher than it would be if you went with option 1. Now I've come to a conclusion from my analysis based on the way I used card advantage theory. What does that mean? It means that I've used my numbers to achieve a purpose. That purpose I achieved was that I now know that picking option 2 in my example situation would give me a higher chance of winning than option 1, so I should choose option 2. You said "It's a -2 overall, a -1 if you don't count rides as minuses even though they are. Either way it's a -1 from a normal ride." Now tell me, can you use those numbers for a meaningful purpose like I was able to? Because there's no point in using card advantage theory if it doesn't achieve a purpose. And don't say something like "It's a -1, so I know that doing if I have to use G Assist, my chances of winning will have gone down by the equivalent of 1 card." That is not achieving a purpose. Oh wow, you know your chances of winning went down? Big woop. Knowing what has happened to your chance of winning doesn't change anything. It's not like knowing what your chance of winning is will increase that chance, so why bother? Knowing what has happened to your chance of winning is meaningless, but knowing what will happen to your chance of winning if you make a specific play lets you change the outcome of the game. (Oh and for the record, when you said "So your 23 compared to 29 cards is meaningless in terms of CA as your only refering to your cards not your opponents" it was foolish to think that I wasn't assuming other factors weren't equal.)